WASHINGTON - Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man.

ADVERTISEMENT

The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.

In 2000 Leakey found an old Homo erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that one evolved from the other, researchers said.

It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact with each other, each having their own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.

They have some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.
STUDY

Nice find, but it is verosimil that two, or more, species of humanoids co-existed occupying different ecological niches. Evolution is not about advancing, about better or about upper and lower. It is about survival. Whatever it takes will be done by the species that want to survive.

Sometimes the evolution even goes backwards, like the Flores Man has proven.

I think it's rather simplistic to think of any evolutionary path as a straight line.

The fossil evidence has been telling us a more complicated story all along, but we seem to have been stuck with this simple model for human evolution. Nice to see that the science is moving forward in this area.

I read the whole article and used it in another post to demonstate how a single fossil find at any time can change the whole evolutionary ladder. I am sick of hearing "well, they would have found fossils by now.." "we know by the fossil record..."
The fossil record is incomplete and the whole human evolutionary chain is up for grabs. I think it's only a matter of time before something BIG is found that really challenges what we think we know.

The idea that this find 'proves' erectus didn't evolve from habilis is a good example of the way so many people totally misunderstand evolution.

In this case, what may have happened is that a group of habilis found themselves living in an area where environmental changes of some kind prompted evolutionary changes. This resulted in this group of habilis evolving into erectus.

However, elsewhere, another group of habilis did not encounter such environmental changes and had no need to evolve to deal with them. So they stayed as habilis.

Thus, erectus evolved from habilis and later co-existed with habilis as well.

Simple

Well I would imagine the professional scientists would be aware of this. I read this from another article which was larger, and mentioned that the question of habilis evolving to erectus has been under question for some years. So this isn't first evidence. Also they mention the skulls were found within walking distance of each other, probably adding evidence that they didn't undergo significantly different evolutionary pressures.

In case you want to see the other article . The core of it's the same.

OK sure, but I think I'd believe Meave Leakey on this one....
"Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis," explains Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the paper. Instead, both species must have had their origins between 2 and 3 million years ago, a time from which few human fossils are known. "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding direct competition." http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Research...n_Evolution.asp

....considering if I can't believe a Leakey on fossil knowledge I can't believe anyone.

And we have to agree there. The aim of evolution was not to create Homo Sapiens but to create surviving species. We are a by-product of survival. And we are at the top of the food chain (now) because we adapted best to changes.

We only have a hand full of pieces to a puzzle with billions of pieces! I think it,s going to be a very long time if ever that we can prove without any doubt what the whole picture and the truth really is! But i do enjoy wondering about it all!

Exactly what I was thinking!

One theory states that some Halibis left Africa and evolved into Erectus in Asia. Then returned to Africa. That could of been the very enviromental change you mentioned. There were less edible plants in Asia and meat eating brought about the evolutionary change. Just a thought.


Lapiche

Evolution of the humans their must have been several variations to adapt to many differing areas then the died and the most adaptable survived.

I don't think scientists aren't aware of this, Every anthropologist or biologist I have ever talked to certainly is. It has been known for a long time that human evolution was not linear. The media latched onto to the idea of "from ape right to man", the classical

.

The media is an institution of their own rules, they do not abide by current scientific opinion, they spread what gets them the most attention. They are a bad forum to get your science from. I wish I had a quick fix for the system, but I do not. I do know though, that the media needs to be more responsible when relaying information between science and public.

This kind of idea has been around for years.



I guess it does not seem as interesting to people as the picture I posted above.

It's interesting how when you start out with a conclusion firmly grasped, no matter what data you find, no matter how obtuse your logic has to be, the data will fit the conclusion.

ah, haha, ha.

Well, that sure gave me a good laugh.

Whew, can see that as a Mastercard commercial. You know something like:

Cost of the internet: 45 dollars a month
Cost of home built computer 1200 dollars
Seeing Iams tell someone about "pre-drawn conclusions"?
Priceless.

First off- evolution is a word with many meanings that most people will define as "change overtime"; in other words the present is different from the past-no one will argue with evolution at this level. Some biologists define it as "a change in gene frequencies over generations" or "cumulative change over time", which also is uncontroversial. My grandparents' genes are different from my parents' genes and my genes are different from my parents' genes. So what? A change in genes occurs every time a child is born; breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries, but always within existing species. Point being lets correctly define this as Darwinism.
The fossil record points to Creation. What happens to a fish when it dies? It is eaten or it decays. In order for it to become a fossil, it must happen rather quickly. To make a fossil requires sediment and pressure. I don't know any better explanation of a fish with a half eaten fish in it's mouth could be a fossil, unless a world-wide devastating flood happened like the account in Genesis. There are also fossils of a fish in the process of giving birth and fish with food in it still digesting. Obviously this could not have been done in millions of years.
Technology has allowed us to more accurately see a cell. In Darwin's days, he could not see the complexity of a cell or the intricate design it has. 1x10 to the 4.6 millionth power is the odds of the simpliest cell coming together randomly. 1x10 to the 18th power is considered impossible to scientists. Think about it.

And there's the tough thing.

How would a flood kill fish?

I found the fish eating fish and giving birth interesting so did some investigating. Here's an explanation for the fish giving birth:

Bone structure is well preserved, especially in the limestone horizons. Adult and juvenile ichthyosaurs are famous from this deposit, in some spectacular cases the young are preserved in the belly region (up to 13 in total). These would have been given birth to when they reached 50-85 cm long; indeed one specimen shows a female in the process of giving birth, probably an unsuccessful labour. The unusual frequency of pregnant females may indicate that this was an ichthyosaur spawning ground. Ichthyosaurs fed on cephalopods, fish and occasionally the young of smaller ichthyosaur species as evidenced by stomach contents. The Posidonia Shale has also been important in increasing our knowledge of the soft biology of ichthyosaurs. Soft tissue preservation indicates that they possessed dorsal fins, fleshy pectoral fins and broad fish-like tails. Interestingly some of the outlines remain perfect despite disarticulation of the skeletal elements.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/l...ia/fossils.html

An unsuccessful labour. Died in childbirth.

Here's the interesting fossil eating a fish: (and a wonderful fossil it is too)

I can think of a few reasons for a fish's death midway through eating a smaller fish. The predator fish died through choking (aspiration) or the prey fish was poisonous to the larger fish or maybe the prey fish has small spines that jammed in the predator fish's mouth to prevent it being swallowed.

I found some other pictures of fish eating fish and this website http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galleri...enRiverFish.htm
If anyone can find any more information on aspiration in fish occurs I'd appreciate a link.

Good explanations for a fish dying while giving birth or while eating... but in those cases, the fish would normally get eaten itself, once dead. Decay is almost universal, fossilization takes exceptional circumstances... like extreme and rapid dehydration or intense pressure and absence of oxygen, possibly a few other things... These don't happen to fish in normal circumstances. Massive layers of sediment rapidly burying a fish would do it... can you think of anything else?

JS

Edit: switched a comma to 'or' to clarify two possible different methods.

If you go back to that second link that weareallsuckers provided for the Green River fossils, the website provides a possible explaination for the way in which the fossil fish were preserved:

"The unusually excellent preservation of the Green River fish fossils is usually attributed to a combination of two factors: 1) a cold period during the Eocene that would have caused dead fish to sink faster due to a less inflated swim bladder; and 2) the great depth of the lakes and the consequent anoxic conditions that would have often prevented scavengers from disturbing the carcasses."

source: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/GreenRiverSite.htm

could vacuum assist in the fossilisation process?

Low atmospheric pressure in combination with low temperature will give you a mummy (freeze-dried), like the ones you find in the Andes.

But it is not the same process, and I assume you are talking about a man made fossil?

This flood was an entire canopy collapsing onto the earth and the great springs of the deep bursting forth. The eruption of huge underground reservoirs of water, along with earthquakes and tidal waves would have buried fish and many other animals (land and sea).

Adaptation and evolution are not the same. Allow me to use this example of dogs. Back when the dogs came off the ark, (they could have been any dogs- poodles, wolves, beagles, great hounds, anything it doesn't matter because they are all dogs with genes for all the varies types of dogs in their existing gene pool) they began to reproduce. Soon, the dogs spread out, some went to cold climates and some to warmer climates. Dogs with short fur and long fur went to the cold climate, but soon the short furred dogs died out and long furred became the dominant trait; they adapted because long fur already existed in their gene pool. The dogs that went to the warmer climate adapted by having short fur become the dominant gene. This could be considered survival of the fittest, though biologist generally refer to it as natural selection.
Evolution speaks of mutations. The difference between mutation and adaptation is that adaptation is a positive characteristic in an organism and already exist in the gene pool. Mutations are random seldom constructive and create variations in the gene pool. Evolutionists have ascribed wondrous powers to mutations, the ability to make new body parts and new animals, when in reality mutations are extremely dangerous and are wreaking havoc on the human race and other creatures.
A quick question that I am seriously interested in finding out the answer to is, How do you explain us having evolved from monkeys if they are still around (and all the other animals)? "We are a by-product of survival". So are they, many animals have uniquely designed surviving traits. They've adapted well, but they still haven't evolved.
Obviously I support a God designing the whole earth and creating everything and if you have any questions on that or rebuttals I would surely like to hear them.

Yes, it would have been one heck of a mess wouldn't it.

This is why I ask the question, so why doesn't the fossil record show such an event?


Edited for spelling

Here is where you're knowledge of evolution is failing ..
We did NOT, And I repeat, DID NOT evolve from monkeys ..
We share a common ancestor with them -- And once branch are now monkeys are another branch called 'Humans'

(That was a VERY brief summary)

I suggest you re search this a little. You're local library should have some books on evolution .. (And in those books you will learn that Evolution isn't just random mutations ..)

Enlighten yourself.


`AA`

Change in gene frequencies over time, more appropriately changes in allele frequencies over time. Evolution does not act on individuals so your point about your grand parents is moot and really not well thought out. Evolution only works on populations, over generations.

The word frequency should have clued you in on this. Frequency is the rate of occurrence in a population. Your own gene frequencies are 100% because you are all your own genes.



I would advise you to read up on fossilization and what the fossil record actually represents...



No one said a cell had to come together randomly, evolution does not require something be a cell for it to act upon it. It requires replication/reproduction and inheritable (partially conserved) variation. Evolution also has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Do you want to cite how you came about these pseduostatistics? Maybe you should talk to someone who is really a scientist before you pull their considerations out of your ass.




Can I ask you a serious question? Do you biblical literalists, with your "high moral standards" no feel the slightest bit of guilt just making stuff up as you go along? I mean really, Is "thou shall not lie" on a list that is semi-important to you?

Most breeds of dogs arose through artificial selection, which can actually serve as a nice model for selection



You are very confused. Mutations are not all bad, many are but not all of them. Do you know why? No? Ok, I'll tell you.

Most mutations are not beneficial because organisms are already adapted to their environments because of evolution. Kind of like the saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it". Same thing here. Most mutations are neutral or maladaptive because a species existing at the current point in time means it is adapted to its environment. Environments change though and some mutations do give rise to things that benefit an organisms fitness. When this occurs this organism is more likely to pass on its genotype. If this genotype is the fittest then that genotype will be seen in a higher frequency within the population over generations.

Variation in the gene pool is a good thing. Species without much variation in their gene pool tend to die out. Population bottlenecks, genetic drift etc are not generally something you want to have to your species. While you argue mutations are bad, this is hardly the case. They do add variation and to top it off most get masked.

The part in bold there is really just nonsense.



I am sure you will most likely not listen to this, but I would feel as if I was somehow not being helpful in suggesting it. If you are really interested in biology and evolution I would advise you take evolutionary ecology class at a local college. Baring that, here are some book suggestions,

Mark Ridley, Evolution 3rd ed. (A bit lengthy but targeted at 400-500 level biology students, so requires a good foundation in biology as well as statistics and calc. but can answer most of your questions)

Mark Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature. (A good read, delves into the origins and evolution of our species particularly, easier read then his other books)

Jerry Coyne's Speciation. (Details mechanisms with examples of speciation and the varying types of mechanisms that lead to speciation. Can get rather in depth, I believe it is aimed at early to mid level graduate students in biology).

James W. Valentine's Origin of Phyla. (Arguably the most respected and distinguished paleobiologist, unites many aspects of biology to explain).

Kirschner and Gerhart's The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma (Uses lots of molecular genetics to explain modes of adaptations and rise of complex parts, not to bad a read for people with decent understanding of chemistry and biology (decent being around a freshman-sophomore level))

Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. If you read no other book about science and evolution the rest of your life, make sure you read this. In fact I would advise everyone read this book, If you are unsure of who Mayr is wiki him. The book starts at Scala Naturae, Aristotle's Essentialism, then right up to modern evolutionary biology. Really everyone should read this book, evolutionist, creationists, IDist, UFO creationists etc!

[size="4"][/size]1) The fossil record does show the event. Evidence of Noah’s Flood can be seen all over the earth, from seabeds to mountaintops. Whether you travel by car, train, or plane, the physical features of the earth’s terrain clearly indicate a catastrophic past, from canyons and craters to coal beds and caverns. Some layers of strata extend acrosscontinents, revealing the effects of a huge catastrophe.
The earth’s crust has massive amounts of layered sedimentary rock, sometimes miles (kilometers) deep! These layers of sand, soil, and material—mostly laid down by water—were once soft like mud, but they are now hard stone. Encased in these sedimentary layers are billions of dead things (fossils of plants and animals) buried very quickly. The evidence all over the earth is staring everyone in the face.

Hot, bubbling mud springs or volcanoes are found in New Zealand, Java and elsewhere, but these Wootton Bassett mud springs usually ooze slowly and are cold. However, in 1974 River Authority workmen were clearing the channel of a small stream in the area, known as Templar’s Firs, because it was obstructed by a mass of grey clay.2 When they began to dig away the clay, gray liquid mud gushed into the channel from beneath tree roots and for a short while spouted a third of a meter (one foot) into the air at a rate of about eight liters per second.
No one knows how long these mud springs have been there. According to the locals they have always been there, and cattle have fallen in and been lost! Consisting of three mounds each about 10 meters (almost 33 feet) long by five meters (16 feet) wide by one meter (about three feet) high, they normally look like huge ‘mud blisters’, with more or less liquid mud cores contained within living ‘skins’ created by the roots of rushes, sedges and other swampy vegetation, including shrubs and small trees.2 The workmen in 1974 had obviously cut into the end of one of these mounds, partly deflating it. Since then the two most active ‘blisters’ have largely been deflated and flattened by visitors probing them with sticks.3

In 1990 an ‘unofficial’ attempt was made to render the site ‘safe’.4 A contractor tipped many truckloads of quarry stone and rubble totaling at least 100 tonnes into the mud springs, only to see the heap sink out of sight within half an hour! Liquid mud spurted out of the ground and flowed for some 600 meters (about 2,000 feet) down the stream channel clogging it. Worried, the contractor brought in a tracked digger and found he could push the bucket down 6.7 meters (22 feet) into the spring without finding a bottom.
So why all the ‘excitement’ over some mud springs? Not only is there no explanation of the way the springs ooze pale, cold, gray mud onto and over the ground surface, but the springs are also ‘pumping up’ fossils that are supposed to be 165 million years old, including newly discovered species.1 In the words of Dr Neville Hollingworth, paleontologist with the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon, who has investigated the springs, ‘They are like a fossil conveyor belt bringing up finds from clay layers below and then washing them out in a nearby stream.’1
Over the years numerous fossils have been found in the adjacent stream, including the Jurassic ammonite Rhactorhynchia inconstans, characteristic of the so-called inconstans bed near the base of the Kimmeridge Clay, estimated as being only about 13 metres (almost 43 feet) below the surface at Templar’s Firs.5 Fossils retrieved from the mud springs and being cataloged at the British Geological Survey office in Keyworth, Nottinghamshire, include the remains of sea urchins, the teeth and bones of marine reptiles, and oysters ‘that once lived in the subtropical Jurassic seas that covered southern England.’1
Some of these supposedly 165 million year old ammonites are previously unrecorded species, says Dr Hollingworth, and the real surprise is that ‘many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells’.1 According to Dr Hollingworth these ‘pristine fossils’ are ’the best preserved he has seen … . You just stand there [beside the mud springs] and up pops an ammonite. What makes the fossils so special is that they retain their original shells of aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] … The outsides also retain their iridescence …’6 And what is equally amazing is that, in the words of Dr Hollingworth, ‘There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old’!1
Perhaps what is more amazing is the evolutionary, millions–of–years mindset that blinds hard–nosed, rational scientists from seeing what should otherwise be obvious—such pristine ammonite fossils still with shimmering mother–of–pearl iridescence on their shells, and bivalves still with their original organic ligaments, can’t possibly be 165 million years old. Upon burial, organic materials are relentlessly attacked by bacteria, and even in seemingly sterile environments will automatically, of themselves, decompose to simpler substances in a very short time.7,8 Without the millions–of–years bias, these fossils would readily be recognized as victims of a comparatively recent event, for example, the global devastation of Noah’s Flood only about 4,500 years ago.

2) Most members of the public still think, as a result of years of conditioning, that the formation of fossils is somehow associated with long time-spans. Those who accept the Bible as the truthful Word of the Creator would know that this cannot be, since there could not have been death and bloodshed before the rebellion of the first man, Adam. They would therefore expect evidence that fossil formation is generally a rapid, catastrophic process.

When one finds a fossil of an isolated tooth or shell, for example, it is not possible to say how quickly or slowly it formed. However, there are countless examples of fossils concerning which it is obvious that long time-spans could not have been involved. For instance, fossils which have features so beautifully preserved that they must have been buried and hardened before they could be damaged by scavengers or decay.

In this spectacular case, not only is the fossil exquisitely preserved, but the fact that mother and infant are 'trapped' in a not-yet-completed birth process makes it profoundly clear that both were rapidly overwhelmed by catastrophic burial, consistent with the world flood of Noah's day. It is, of course, not feasible that mother just lay on the bottom of the ocean floor giving birth for thousands of years while being slowly covered up by accumulating sediments!

Unlike many other reptiles, ichthyosaurs gave birth to live young. Another photo shows another fossilised mother ichthyosaur with several unborn in her abdomen, and with what appears to be a newborn juvenile a short distance away (perhaps her own). Again, the beautiful state of preservation defies the idea that long time-spans were involved in the formation of this fossil.

3) Because of the apparent frailty of their bodies, and the ability of many of them to fly, insects are thought of being rarely found as fossils. Any mention of insect fossils though, and most people think of insects spectacularly fossilized in amber.1 However, insect fossils have also been found preserved in fine-grained sedimentary strata, including those associated with sequences of coal beds.2

One world-famous fossil insect bed is that found in the Belmont-Warner's Bay area of Newcastle, approximately 90 miles (145km) north of central Sydney, Australia.3 This horizon is about 2 ft. 6 in. (0.75m) thick, and consists of hard, fine-grained tuffaceous chert. It lies some 70 ft. (20m) below the bottom of the economically-exploited Fassifern Coal Seam in the upper Newcastle Coal Measures, and thus is conventionally regarded as late Permian at around 250 million years old.4 Outcrops of the fossil insect bed occur for almost two miles (3.2km) along a ridge. Its lateral extent has never been traced due to housing estates and industrial developments in the surrounding areas, but it is believed to extend at least six miles (9.6km) in a one mile (1.6km) wide belt in a general northwest-southeast direction.

The fine grain size of the tuffaceous chert bed has facilitated the detailed preservation of even the venation in the prolific insect wings entombed therein. Stratification is pronounced and well-defined joints cause the tuffaceous chert to break into rhomb-shaped blocks. In some cases the fresh, grey to black rock is so highly silicified as to be slightly translucent, and all evidence of banding is obliterated. This insect bed is underlain by a 15-18 ft. (4.6-5.5m) thick sandstone, beneath which is a very prominent bed of coarse, strongly-cemented conglomerate consisting of water-worn pebbles (including pebbles of coal). Fossil wood is abundant in this underlying sandstone, including sections of fossilized tree trunks up to 18 in. (0.46m) in diameter.

Fossil insect remains—predominantly wings, but including portions of bodies—were first recognized in this tuffaceous chert in 1898, and subsequently nearly 2000 specimens were collected and registered at The Australian Museum in Sydney.5 It has been estimated, extrapolating from an average yield of 10-20 fossil insect wings per cubic foot, that there could be some hundreds of millions of fossil insect wings per square mile preserved in this bed.

The diversity of the insect assemblage is equally extraordinary. Some 145 species assigned to 97 genera have been described from this horizon.6 The Belmont insect fauna is, from an evolutionary perspective, "curiously unbalanced" when compared to that found in rocks of the corresponding geological "age" in the northern hemisphere.7 No Palaeoptera ("ancient wings"), except an undescribed meganisopteron8 (large, probably predacious insects resembling dragonflies with 12-75cm [4.7-29.5 in.] wingspans), no blattoids (cockroaches), and no orthopteroids (straight-winged insects such as grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets) other than a single species of Plecoptera (stoneflies)9 are known from the Belmont Insect Bed. Only one species of Glosselytrodea (one of the mecopteroids, or insects with wings of equal length, such as the butterflies, moths, and flies) occurs,10 and one species of Odonata (dragonflies).11 However, there are about 60 Homoptera (cicadas, leafhoppers, aphids),12 about fifteen Psocoptera (related to book lice),13 three families of Neuroptera (lacewings),14 a few Coleoptera (beetles),15 and Trichoptera (caddis flies),16 an abundance (about 30) of Mecoptera (scorpion flies),17 and a few species (some reassigned) of Diptera (four-winged and two-winged flies).18 The "earliest" Heteroptera (includes stink bugs, assassin bugs, water bugs, and bed bugs) found anywhere in the world come from this horizon.19 Furthermore, apart from a single specimen from the late Carboniferous of Tasmania, the insect fauna from the Belmont Insect Bed is the oldest known in Australia.20

Of significance is the fact that these insect remains in this tuffaceous chert horizon are associated with plentiful fossil conchostracans (mostly diminutive, branchiopod crustaceans with a bivalved carapace enclosing the whole body, and related to water fleas). Living conchostracans inhabit freshwater environments. A diverse fossil assemblage has been described,21 a total of 25 species of this group of arthropods being present in this horizon.22 Fish scales are plentiful in some localities, though no fossil fish have been found.23 Associated plant remains include Glossopteris, Phyllotheca, and Neoggerathiopsis with occasional Annularia and Sphenopteris, woody gymnosperm trees, ferns, and horsetails that constitute the flora of the coal seams in the Newcastle Coal Measures, and other southern hemisphere Permian coals. The lower portions of the Belmont Insect Bed possess a coarse texture and are dirty brown to black in color, due to the prevalent comminuted plant remains resembling chopped straw.

Many theories have been advanced to explain how insects might have evolved,24 beginning with a few wingless groups in Devonian rocks. After a gap in the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian), there is a sudden explosive "appearance" of winged insects in Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) and Permian rocks, where representatives of nearly all extant orders are found. There is definitely no evidence of macroevolutionary transitional forms amongst the myriad of fossilized insects found in the Belmont Insect Bed, nor in the insect fossil record as a whole. Insects appear suddenly in the record fully-formed and fully-functional (intelligently designed and created), and after that they just diversify (reproduce after their "kinds"). Yet the relative richness of the insect fossil record is indicated by the 1,087 insect families having a geological history, and the 69% of living families having fossil representatives.

On the other hand, there are only about 790 living insect families, which implies more than 27% of the 1,087 insect families have become extinct. In reality the strata contain a record of death, so graphically evident in this Belmont Insect Bed. Hundreds of millions of insects were suddenly caught in a blanket of volcanic ash catastrophically blasted over them. Wings were ripped from insect bodies, though sometimes bodies without wings and legs, or with parts of only some legs,25 survived the volcanic blast to be entombed with all the wings. The accumulation of this silicified volcanic ash bed was no slow-and-gradual process in some temporal habitat, for only a catastrophe would have swept together and entombed such an incredible mass of insect parts with the carapaces of countless tiny crustaceans, fish scales, plate remains, and plant "hash." Nor was this volcanic catastrophe some isolated event in the midst of timeless tranquility, but rather a fleeting stage in a far greater watery cataclysm. Directly beneath this volcanic ash bed, deposited over an enormously extensive area, is a coarse, water-worn pebble conglomerate, and sandstone with the fossilized remains of the tree trunks whose violently stripped foliage very soon became the plant remains and "hash" in the volcanic ash. Above, the strata include the great thicknesses of plant debris making up coal seams, buried by further violently transported conglomerate masses.

Thus these swarms of insects, whose original ancestors had been created and then diversified as they had reproduced after their "kinds," were catastrophically destroyed and entombed by a volcanic blast during a watery cataclysm. This Australian fossil insect bed, therefore, bears eloquent testimony to the devastation during the Genesis Flood.


This ones long enough, I wanted to give as much detail as possible to allow you to form your own opinions. I'll put more on another reply.

4) The Hawkesbury Sandstone, named after the Hawkesbury River just north of Sydney, dominates the landscape within a 100 km (60 mile) radius of downtown Sydney. It is a flat-lying layer of sandstone, some 20,000 sq. km (7,700 sq. miles) in area and up to 250 meters (820 feet) thick.1 Dominated by grains of the mineral quartz2 (which is chemically very similar to window glass, and harder than a steel file), the sandstone is a hard, durable rock which forms prominent cliffs, such as at the entrance to Sydney Harbour and along the nearby coastline.

Despite the widespread, spectacular exposures of the Hawkesbury Sandstone, there is a long history of speculation about its origins, going back to Charles Darwin.3 Rather than consisting of just one sandstone bed encompassing its total thickness, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is made up of three principal rock types—sheet sandstone, massive sandstone and relatively thin mudstone.1 Each has internal features that indicate deposition in fast-flowing currents, such as in a violent flood.4 For example, thin repetitive bands sloping at around 20° within the flat-lying sandstone beds (technically known as cross-beds), sometimes up to 6 meters (20 feet) high, would have been produced by huge sandwaves (like sand dunes) swept along by raging water.

Fossils in the sandstone itself are rare. However, spectacular fossil graveyards have been found in several lenses (lenticular bodies of only limited extent) of mudstone.5 Many varieties of fish and even sharks have been discovered in patterns consistent with sudden burial in a catastrophe. Some such graveyards contain many plant fossils.

The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a Middle Triassic ‘age’ of around 225–230 million years by most geologists.1,6,7 This is based on its fossil content, and on its relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region (the Sydney Basin). All of these are placed in the context of the long ages timescale commonly assumed by geologists.

Because of its hardness and durability, the Hawkesbury Sandstone not only provides a solid foundation for downtown Sydney’s skyscrapers, but is an excellent building material. A number of Sydney’s old buildings have walls of sandstone blocks. Today, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is mainly used for ornamental purposes.

To obtain fresh sandstone, slabs and blocks have to be carefully quarried. Several quarries still operate in the Gosford area just north of Sydney, and one near Bundanoon to the south-west.

In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon (see photo, right).8 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than likely it was the forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.2,7 The fossil was probably the wood from the stem of a frond.

Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.

The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.

The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0 ‰.9 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.

Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same ‘age’ as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria.

This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon ‘age.’ However, a 33,720 ± 430 years BP radiocarbon ‘age’ emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary ‘age’ of 225–230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.

Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon ‘age’ for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a Creation/Flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging Flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The Flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory’s calculated 14C ‘age’ (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.10

Correctly understood, this radiocarbon analysis is totally consistent with the biblical account of a young Earth and a recent global Flood, as recorded in Genesis by the Creator Himself.

If you're story of this Big Flood is actually true -- Then it is consistent with the theory .. No .. I won't call it a theory ..
Of the Grand canyon being formed by this flood in FIVE minutes.
For that too be possible the water would have to traveling more than 2x the speed of light. But I guess it doesn't mention that
in you're Book of Fairy Tales. ( I'm referring to the Jewish Bible )

I am not going to address all of this because you have simply plagiarized from answersingenesis.org. That you simply copy and paste stories such as this shows you are actually unwilling to understand anything you are posting about.

Again, I wonder how it is people like you (and probably you included) claim your religion and yourselves to be of moral upstanding.

These “tricks” have been addressed many times now on these boards by real live scientists. Unfortunately they seem to fall on ears indoctrinated into deafness. While I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt that your intellectual prowess is at a level sufficient to understand radiometric techniques, I cannot.

Especially when you post garbage like this and tout the,
flag (Which by the way is also plagiarized).

These “tricks” that oh so moral “creation scientists” use can be read up on HERE.

Radiometric dating techniques are a tool, like any other tool they need used correctly. You do not radiometric date things blind, you should have some kind of idea as to the age of the fossil (rough guess allowed). Also, one needs to follow the rules for carbon dating or any other dating technique they are using. These rules are there for a reason, to ensure the accuracy of the method. Simply ignoring them to “prove” they don’t work is asinine for a number of reasons that I need not mention.

Let me ask you something Apostle,
Let’s say you go out and purchase a new table saw. This table saw comes with an instruction booklet and warning labels. Now, I may not be a smart guy so I will ask this question, will you follow the labels and instructions included with the saw? Or are you simply going to ignore them to show the saw can be used incorrectly to “prove” saws used incorrectly don’t work well.

I mean, pretty much you YEC’s and “creation scientists” are right up there with This Guy. Because at the end of the day all you have done is “prove” a tool used incorrectly does not work…

Brilliant, the outcome for future Nobel’s is good, says the magic 8 ball.

I'll have to have a bit of time to read your entire post, but I think I able able to disprove your account using just the first paragraph.

First of all I have to make an assumption that you believe in a literal interpretation of Noah's story as written in the bible.

The thing that you really need to keep in mind, and the thing that most ( if not all ) Creationist sites don't mention, is that in order for your explanation to be correct, ALL the sediments in the fossil record ( "from seabeds to mountaintops" ) had to be produced within the duration of the flood.

I've checked some Creationist sites, and from what I am able to gather, they believe that Noah was on the Ark for approximately 1 year. At that point the waters had receded enough to expose solid land.

You can make a guess at how long it would take for the waters to completely disappear, a month?, a year?, ten years?

If I can demonstrate to you, that it took longer ( much longer ) to produce the stratigraphic record, than it did to produce Noah's flood ( from start to finish ) then your whole argument will crumble like dry leaves.

I did just copy and paste these from answersingenesis.com. Big deal. That doesn't contaminate the evidence, which is what you asked me for. Now, I would like to ask you the same. I do not claim to be highly educated in this topic, but I'm trying to learn, and I want to hear both sides of the story, so please present me with your evidence for evolution.

Well, my Bible says 40 days and 40 nights it rained. I've never heard nor claimed the 5 minute forming of the Grand Canyon though I believe it was formed during the flood.

You want to hear both sides of the story .. But you don't want evidence .. What the ..

Heres how the story is ..

Creationism -- A hypothesis that has no more meaning than 'Monster under the bed' one.
Evolution -- Scientific fact.


Theres ya story.

In regards to the first evidence you provide for Noah's flood, the Wootton Bassett Mud Spring's.

"Wootton Bassett Mud Spring is situated on low, boggy ground in a small coppice approximately 1km south-east of Wootton Bassett. The spring consists of several vents which emit liquid mud all yearround and at accentuated rates after periods of prolonged rainfall. This mud dries and then accretes around the vents, forming mud blisters. The spring emerges from the Ampthill Clay Formation (which was deposited on the floor of a warm tropical sea during theJurassic Period) through five vents. It is most active during the winter and also for about a month after a period of heavy rain. The vents have been shown to contain liquid mud to a depth of about six metres (hence the need for rigorous safety precautions on monitoring visits!).

The chemistry of the water in the clay indicates that it comes from an aquifer in the limestone ‘Coral Rag’ formation, the top of which underlies the Ampthill Clay at a depth of 20 metres."

The Ampthill Clay Formation is contained in the Upper Oxfordian of the Jurassic Period, and records a time interval of approximately 3 - 5 million years.

The fossils contained within the formation are entirely consistant with marine deposits of the Jurassic age, and do not contain the remains of terrestrial animals or plants, which would be indicadive of a major flood event such as the one you are suggesting.

source 1: http://www.english-nature.gov.uk/about/tea...wiltsnews11.pdf
source 2: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/V21Chap1.pdf

Considering that it takes an extremely unique set of circumstances to form a fossil, the fossil record we look at today is a minute example of all the life that has flourished on this planet.

The Earth in my opinion has seen the rise and fall of many, many species , none of which we may ever know existed.......simply because there will be no fossils.

Aside from oil, diamonds, lava and the limited fossil record....what else do we have to peer into our extreme past???

Apostle,
It is a problem to simply copy and paste someone else's work with out providing any kind of reference to them. That is called plagiarism and may have learned about it and why it is wrong somewhere in your K-12 curriculum.

I told you why the "evidence" for carbon dating is not valid evidence. They misuse a tool and say that tool being misused does not work correctly, well duh. One should not have to have a high education level to understand misusing tools will yield poor results.

As far as your request for a "presentation" of evolutionary evidence, this has been done many times on these boards which I will link too shortly. There are year long biology courses at the college level devoted to the teachings of evolutionary biology. There are whole 4 year BS majors in the fields of EvoDevo and Evolutionary ecology-Organismal biology (EEOB). People who keep telling you and others like you on these boards that "There is mountains of evidence for evolutionary theory" are not simply making this up. There are really mountains of evidence, far too much to present it all here.

Teaching you all the evidence that supports evolutionary theory is far beyond the scope of a causal discussion board. If you are really wanting to hear both sides of the story then I will suggest again you enroll in a local community college and take a class in ecology or biology or one specifically on evolution if offered. If you are unwilling to do so then you need to do some reading.

All the books I suggest to you a few posts back are very sufficient in teaching one (a mix for beginners and experts alike) evolutionary theory and underlying mechanisms. I will copy and paste that list here again in case you missed it.


Despite this being a casual discussion board there are still many posts on evolution and how it works. Here are some of those for you.
Evolution: A Detailed Anaylsis. This is a great thread that was largely ignored by the anti-evolution crowed. A real live biologist made the thread and was willing to answer any questions about evolution. Please read it.

Radiometric Dating. I started a thread on radiometric dating (which I have already linked to you). The first post is many simplified explanations followed by a FAQ section by a Christian scientist (note Christian, not creation). If there is a specific aspect of radiometric dating you have a problem with feel free to post it in there and it will get answered.

A post on evolution in action on mankind. It includes two examples, one based on CCR5 receptors because of the plague and another based on Sickle cell anemia and the malaria parasite.

A good refutation to your global flood found here, Made by another very intelligent member with a good understanding of science.

Some help with transitional fossils


The information "argument" refuted here

Seanph has provided a great many links on evolution, sadly I think many of them are flat out ignored by the anti-evolution types. Simply search his posts (I don't have time to copy all his links at the moment) for the links or browse through them HERE

Many other members have provide detailed explinations of evolutionary mechanisms here as well. If you have any specific questions regarding the science of those feel free to post them HERE

No, I want the proof. What's the proof for evolution?

Thank you I will look into these. Ok, if there are loads of evidence, just give me some of what you think is the most solid or that you found most interesting, if you don't mind.

Type 'Evidence Evolution' into google.

Have fun.

I was speaking of the first cell. The only explanation I've heard for it coming together is spontaneous generation. How did the first cell come together then? and which came first the DNA or the protein? since DNA requires protein to function and protein is made by DNA. I believe since scientists have made clever attempts at producing life in a lab only demonstrate that life can be demonstrated by intelligence.
When the populations of wild dogs were spreading across the globe, the environment shaped their characteristics through natural selection. As humans began to domesticate dogs, they artificially selected the traits they desired in populations. The diversity all comes from the DNA of the original dog kind. We do know that all of the breeds did come from a very narrow gene pool, and this is confirmed by secular scientists. This is a report from the journal of Science, November 22, 2002- "The origin of the domestic dog from wolves had been established...We examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs representing all major dog populations worldwide,...suggesting a common origin from a single gene pool for all dog populations."
Almost every mutation we know has been identified based on the disease it causes. Examples of mutations that are beneficial to the individual or the population are sown to be a loss of information. In evolution, these mistakes are supposed to increase information even though in over 3,000 known fruit fly mutations not one produces a fly that has a survival advantage. Natural selection acts to preserve or eliminate traits that are beneficial or harmful, as the creation model would predict. I agree that variation in a gene pool is a good thing. Natural selection and mutations simply produce variations, however, no genetic mechanism can increase the amount of information that is needed to demonstrate evolution from particles to people. Mutations do not add information to an organism's genome, Mutations may affect the degree of a trait, but they do not cause new traits. If this were the source of evolution, one would expect to find a general increase in the amount of DNA as you move up the evolutionary tree of life. Humans are certainly more complex organisms than bacteria and plants, but they have less DNA in general. The organism with the most DNA is actually a bacterium (Epulopiscium fishelsoni). This has at least 25 times as much DNA as a human cell. There are also 85,000 copies of one of its genes per cell.
Please, tell me what you think of this information.

Visitors to the Grand Canyon hear that it was made some millions of years ago. That the Tapeats Sandstone was deposited 550 million years ago, and the Kaibab Limestone that forms the rim is 250 million years old. The Grand Canyon strata extends over 250 miles into the eastern part of Arizona. There, they are at least one mile lower in elevation. Supposedly, the uplift of the Grand Canyon area occurred about 70 million years ago- hundreds of millions of years after the sediments were deposited.
I would expect hundreds of millions of years to be plenty of time for the sediment to cement into hard rock. Yet the evidence indicates that the sediments were soft and unconsolidated when they were bent. Instead of fracturing like the basement rock did, the entire layer thinned as it bent. The sand grains show no evidence that the material was brittle and rock-hard, because none of the grains are elongated. Neither has the mineral cementing the grains been broken and recrystallized. Instead, the evidence points to the whole 4,000 foot thickness of strata still flexible when it was uplifted. So, the millions of years of geological time are imaginary. This, instead, demonstrates the reality of the catastrophic flood of Noah's day.
The same results of the Grand Canyon can be accomplished by large amounts of water over a short period of time. Observations of canyon formation in modern times suggest that the Grand Canyon may have formed much as did a small canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. During an unusually wet period, small irrigation ditch was used to divert some excess water. As the water passed through the ditch, if became a gully, then a gulch, then a canyon, 1500 feet long and 120 feet deep. This all happened in 6 days, not millions of years.

Well no .. Thats actually wrong but anyway ..

You say in a few earlier posts that you want proof of Evolution,
OKay fair enough, But then you start asking questions about the first cell on Earth and how it got there.
Please note that Evolution does not deal with how life first appeared.

Apostle,

Could you please provide one good reason why an omnipotent God, who has the power to create and destroy life at whim - indeed, to create universes at whim, had to flood the Earth to eradicate all life except for a mythical Noah, his family and some animals they were commanded to preserve?

Please, no 'God moves in mysterious ways' stuff. Why not just wave his hand or twitch his nose and 'poof'! All life is gone.

The story of the biblical flood is a much-altered retelling of a catastrophic local flood of pre-biblical times.

In order for people to be saved in that time before Jesus or before the 10 commandments, all they had to do was good- what is right in the eyes of the Lord. And according to ch 6 verse 5 in Genesis in the Bible- "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." and in v. 8- "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." God saw that the earth was corrupt and full of violence; Noah and his family were the only people trying to please God. God was very grieved at this. So, he wiped out all humans except for Noah and his family. Of course, God could have done this in any way he wanted to, but God created the natural laws that govern the earth (such as gravity or thermodynamics) and when he does something on earth he likes to work within those laws. God created everything, if someone is sick and about to die Christian will often beg and plead God for a miracle, and not to say it isn't a miracle because it is to us, God can do it very easily because he knows what to do, how to tweak it just right so the sickness will dissolve. To God miracles are a piece of cake, but to us they are amazing and unimaginable. God is the greatest scientist.
Also, a flood drastically changed the earth to the way he wanted it. Before the flood there was a canopy over the earth- everything lived longer, I believe the continents were all 1 landmass and that there was much more mass to account for the fossil records huge animal population, and everything would be larger. Volcanoes, earthquakes were both also occurring, and it's interesting to note that if a condensation trigger were present (dust source), computers estimate it would take about 6 weeks to completely precipitate the canopy. Volcanoes are capable of projecting dust into the upper atmosphere. So it would take about 6 weeks or 42 days, and how long did it rain- 40 days.
I've heard of that in bold, but I'll admit I don't know much about it. But from what you say if it is much altered is there really any proof it was copied form that? I'd like to study more if you have any information on it I'd appreciate it.

How do you know that is wrong?
Hmm, it doesn't say anything about the first life? what does deal with how the first life appeared in support of evolution?

Exatly -- The Study Of Evolution doesn't deal with how life appeared ..

PS -- We know it didn't happen in 6 days .. It's just impossible ..

I'm sure if you did some actual re search you'd soon learn something along the same lines as well.